Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive206

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited : "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 13 Dec 2016 "Another case of an admin without the full briefing ... Jeez, you guys need to sort your shit out." Seems to be insulting and belittling.
2. 13 Dec 2016 "...way to read the history ... if you're that sensitive ... Another "admin" edited the blurb and fucked it up ... Don't get all over the top ..." Seems to be insulting and belittling.
3. 13 Dec 2016 "If you don't know what you're doing, (a) don't do it and (b) don't use admin tools until you do know what you're doing. Maintaining the main page is a complex business and not one suited to drive-by so-called admins." Seems to be insulting and belittling.
4. 13 Dec 2016 "FFS, you and Katie need to grow a pair, neither of you have added constructively here ... If you actually want to do the job of an admin, do it, don't complain about it." Seems to be insulting and belittling.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Rambling Man resigned their admin status during the Arbcom case in October. They now seem to be increasingly agitated about the performance of other admins. No doubt it is frustrating that they are no longer able to perform such tasks themselves. But comments of this kind do not seem civil and seem to be what Arbcom had in mind when when placing this sanction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification of The Rambling Man

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Messing with the main page should not happen. If admins aren't fully commensurate with how to do this, they should leave it to others. Admins who have been asked to respond to questions, in particular relating to accusing editors of lying, before then blocking them need to be held accountable for their misbehaviour. Everything else I have to say has already be said at either my talk page, AN or ANI. P.S. I still want MikeV's previous enforcement notice to be redacted too. And given the block has clearly been deemed "premature" if not downright "incorrect" and/or "involved", we need to make sure MikeV doesn't make such mistakes in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:In the news for a reason - to help admins know what to do / what not to do. Apparently the big red capital letters used for "ATTENTION" and the flashing image, File:Blinking Stop hand.gif, that it uses are not enough to draw some admins' attention to the three simple warnings underneath. Suggestions for how this edit notice can be improved would be welcomed, I'm sure. Perhaps the link to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions and Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection need to be even bigger?

In the meantime, admins not understanding that the main page is not the place to allow unprotected images *is* a big deal, given previous experience with unprotected images there and the instructions on how to do things, and I don't blame TRM for getting annoyed about this - particularly as this is not the only instance of unprotected main page images at ITN from the last few days. Nor do I blame TRM for getting annoyed about admins indicating that it's OK for admins who "don't know how do it" (not TRM's words) to make edits to the main page templates that need fixing by others who do know what they're doing. Robust and justified criticism of admins who edit our most high-profile page without following the long-standing instructions designed to help them is *not* the same as insulting or belittling. I'm commenting here rather than in the section for uninvolved administrators given my long-standing WP friendship with TRM. Bencherlite^Talk 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bencherlite. I am far more concerned about an admin having apparently added an unprotected image to the main page than with TRM for being forceful in pointing out the gaffe. We need admins to be careful editing the main page. That said I made the same mistake once - a fellow admin was kind enough to replace the unprotected image on commons with a photo of a piece of paper on which he'd written something along the lines of "Which idiot forgot to protect this image". I learned my lesson. I'm sure everyone involved in this incident has too. WJBscribe (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that TRM resigned his admin powers under threat of them being stripped from him.

I don't see any insulting or belittling here, as Bencherlite and WJBscribe also state. I see annoyance, perhaps, but if TRM is going to be punished for being annoyed, then we all should be. Being annoyed is not the same thing as being insulting. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept that MikeV is not involved, he concedes that he wasn't aware of this discussion, and I think that was enough of a reason to reverse his block. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a bit off-topic, but can't someone just write a script or edit filter that would automatically prevent unprotected Commons images from being added to the main page, and thereby prevent that aspect of the problem from recurring? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concern about TRM's difficult mode of interation, but I'm almost as concerned about Mike V having interposed his own (not-always-unclouded) judgment even while this process is underway – six minutes, in fact, after the one admin who had commented here opined that action was inappropriate. Too often I've seen him lay his heavy hand on the block button from on high (including imposing a block – quickly overturned – on me). EEng 05:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an uninvolved admin because I reverted Michael Hardy's addition of the unprotected image at ITN. Keeping unprotected images off the Main Page is very important and is repeatedly mentioned in the editnotice, ITN admin instructions, etc. It seems unfair to block TRM for expressing frustration at other people's inability/unwillingness to follow clearly those laid out directions. I think an exception to the arbcom remedy, so that TRM is allowed to reasonably criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure, should be read in. At best the last comment deserved a warning. Blocking this quickly seems like jumping the gun.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that TRM is forbidden to "criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure" or any other reason, he's "prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." That's an entirely different animal, since one can criticize without insulting or belittling. I'm not making a judgement about whether TRM violated his sanction or not, just pointing out a relevant distinction.

Concerning EEng's point, I think considering the recent dust-up between TRM and Mike V apparent on TRM's talk page, Mike V should probably have passed on blocking TRM, as his block raises the impression that it might have been motivated by bad feelings between them rather than by TRM's action, and this discussion was already open. It might be a good idea for Mike V to consider lifting the block and allowing the admins at AE to determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at WP:ANI#Admin accountability and involvedness. Basically (independently) mirroring BMKs points above. Fram (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This would just be a waste of time if it wasn't for the bad block that has come of it. Move to close. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the latest incident as, since the Arbcom case, TRM has shown no contrition, does not appear to accept the Arbcom rulings and his aggressive language seems just as bad as before. I agree with Lankiveil that telling KrakatoaKatie to "grow a pair" was quite unacceptable, especially as she is a woman. Her response to this tirade was "Well. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off. – I'm out". This demonstrates the effect of such language – it drives people away. Sanctions are therefore appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)I prev[reply]

I wasn't pinged when TRM went on his little tirade, nor was I pinged about this AE request. If one is going to tell me to do the anatomically impossible, the least one can do is notify me.

For the record, I didn't do anything wrong at the ITN template. I saw the call for assistance at ERRORS several days ago and, with a couple of other admins, decided to try to help. I fixed the blurb and declined to change the image because I wasn't sure if there was consensus to change a blurb as significantly as what was proposed. Before I made the changes, I pored over the ITN instructions for hours – hours, because I didn't want to make a mistake. I previewed the template about eight times before I saved it. I marked the items done/not done, and kept the tab open so I could refresh the page to make sure I didn't screw up. I don't use the watchlist (haven't for years and years because it got to be several thousand pages), so when someone comments under me and whines about a mistake, I assume they're talking to me. If I had made a mistake, I would expect to be told in civil terms. I've made lots of mistakes across this project and I've almost always been notified in a calm manner. I don't think that will happen while TRM is patrolling that page, so I won't edit there again. I have other areas in which I can work where I know my contributions are valued.

As tantrums go, this isn't very bad. My children have done better. I get rape threats, so TRM really needs to up his game if he's going to make me lose sleep. I don't care if he's blocked or unblocked. I suggest, however, that he not come to AN shouting about the lack of admins at ERRORS again. He's not likely to find many takers. Katie^talk 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy invoked states that TRM "is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." I agree that Andrew Davidson's diffs show examples of The Rambling Man violating that remedy, and the remedy dictates that TRM "may be blocked" (emphasis mine). We ought to consider Andrew D.'s first two examples to be constructive criticism delivered by a frustrated editor (as other commenters have noted) in a matter of importance. The third example probably also qualifies, though the phrase "drive-by so-called admins" is belittling and does seem directed at particular users. Those three comments violate the letter of the remedy, but I can't imagine any other editor would earn a block for such mild comments and nor should TRM.

However the fourth example, telling a female editor to "grow a pair" would be a borderline personal attack by any user. TRM, with an active remedy specifically prohibiting such comments, should earn an AE block for this comment. The purpose of that block does seem to have been served by Mike V's action, however.

A note of clarification: if the committee determines that Mike V's (now overturned) block serves the purpose of a block that would have been warranted from this enforcement request, please specify whether Mike V's block counts as a first block under the remedy, or if in the committee's view TRM has not been blocked under the remedy. It's going to come up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm going to ramble on a bit about WP:INVOLVED, if you'll indulge me. It's important that administrators be seen as neutral, for the good governance of the project, however we sometimes apply INVOLVED too liberally. It appears to me that Mike V is considered involved because he posted an administrative warning on TRM's talk page. I'm sure there's more to it judging by the number of commenters, but if that is all there is to it, Mike V is not involved. Furthermore, and this is more to my upcoming point, if any genuinely neutral administrator would have come to the same action, then an involved administrator's action is justified notwithstanding INVOLVED, and I think that that is the case here. So we're saying that TRM's block should be overturned only because the blocking administrator was involved, not because the rationale behind the block was wrong.

We currently have only 526 active administrators; this year there have been 62 fewer promotions than demotions, and that gap is widening. The number of administrators available to be "uninvolved" in any particular issue is rapidly declining. If this trend continues of procedurally reversing administrative actions not because they are wrong but only because they were done by involved administrators, we will very soon be facing a situation where there are no administrators capable of acting against certain users and in certain topic areas. I encourage the committee and the community as a whole to consider this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

trimmed for word count Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, at this point, if we can or should do anything further here. This particular AE filing has been tainted by the bad block (which has recently been undone by consensus at a WP:AN discussion). Whether or not TRM should or should not have been blocked stopped being the issue when the blocking admin jumped the gun and blocked him unilaterally and in contravention of the early stages of this discussion. It may have played out that consensus would have eventually been that TRM was in violation, and that a block would have been merited, but we'll never know. Officially, IAR is the only rule I follow 100% of the time, and I've never been accused of following policy for policy's sake, but pragmatically, when one oversteps policy in THIS way, it muddies the water and makes just enforcement impossible. It seems to me that the only thing to do is to let this go at this point, don't re-block TRM regardless of whether he did or didn't merit it. Per WP:ROPE either TRM will abide by the terms of his sanctions, or he won't. If he does, than this block was unnecessary. If he doesn't, then another block will be coming. But the current CF in no way is resolvable, and we should just shut this down and call it a day. Let WP:ROPE be our guidance here... --Jayron32 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of opinion this is similar to the examples I originally cited in the case request, and if this had happened prior to my filing the case I would've cited it as well. When the person you're talking to responds with "Welp. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off" that must be a sign of going too far.

Seriously TRM do you have to act like this ... your behavior on ITN improved to the point I was thinking of nominating you for adminship in a year's time, and then this happens ... as long as Katie and Michael Hardy fit WP:HERE, they, like the rest of us, are on your side. Do you really, really, have to bash them for trying to help? Banedon (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the 4th diff to be a violation of TRM's sanctions against insulting or belittling others. In light of MikeV's block and the subsequent unblock, I would suggest that we call this "time-served" and issue a strongly worded warning against future behavior. TRM has requested additional admin support at these main page venues, but insulting and belittling those who actually attempt good faith edits there does not seem like a sustainable way to improve involvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the 4th diff was a violation however because of the INVOLVED block I see no point in reblocking over it, Ofcourse like Jayron says had Mike not jumped the gun consensus may or may not have been to block but IMHO as it stands it's stupid to block someone, unblock them and then a few weeks later block them again ....., I would suggest we give TRM some rope (and a stern warning if it helps), close this and all move on. –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved only in so much as that I participate frequently at ITN. I think we all need to recognize editors are human and can make mistakes, even experienced ones. Yes, mistakes related to the main page are potentially more problematic, and editors are cautioned to avoid touching those templates if they are not sure on the process. But there is no need to chastise editors for a single mistake (its when it becomes a pattern after being toled about it before that we must become concerned), we're working collaboratively. I'm a bit worried about some of the above commentators putting the importance of the "sacred" nature of the main page over civility given the goals of this project.

I would not say that the first three diffs are problematic on their own (others have shown the 4th being one of concern), but speaking as an ITN regular, TRM's attitude has started to creep up to where it was prior to the ArbCom case; it's not close, but the trend is very clear now. Otherwise ignoring the fourth diff, TRM should be TROUTED and reminded about the Arbcom case; but as to that 4th, I do feel a stronger statement should be made to caution TRM, but I don't have opinion if that should be anything more than a statement of concern to TRM. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• TRM is clearly frustrated by what he considers to be sub-par performances by some admins in maintaining the main page. I am assuming that TRMs criticisms are at least partly justified, ie there have been screw-ups. I know enough about the main page to know that it is not a place you edit unless you are sure about what you are supposed to be doing. IMO, most of the comments in the diffs are aimed at the sub-par actions of the admins concerned, rather at the admins themselves. The comment "grow a pair" is, IMO, insulting, and I strongly suggest TRM tones down his language when referring to other editors, but I'm not sure a single insult is enough to justify anything other than a warning to watch his language when referring to other editors (whether they are admins or not). I'd be quite happy to revisit if there are any further insults, but this seems a bit light on to justify sanctions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I notice thet TRM has already been blocked for 72 hours over this, probably rendering this moot. For the record, I think that the block is a fair call; the fourth comment especially is insulting and crude, and there was no exception made in the original decision for cases where responses were being made to mess-ups on the main page. For most users, this wouldn't be worthy of a block, but then most users haven't been sanctioned for hostility towards other editors at ArbCom. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Short comment to note that Mike V's arbitration enforcement block was overturned after appeal on AN as "hasty" and "WP:INVOLVED", and Mike himself has pointed out he was not aware of the ongoing AE filing. This was specifically to allow the AE filing to reach its conclusion. I am not commenting on the substance of the present AE filing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to comment last night, but I got tied up. Peacemaker67 pretty much says exactly what I was going to say. The 4th example is the only one that really bothers me and that clearly crosses the line. The others are rude, this is true, but it takes more than rude to draw a sanction. Considering the block/unblock and such, I would suggest a strong, final warning. TRM really does need to dial it back a couple of notches. He's often right on the merits but horribly wrong on the delivery. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The unblock is procedurally out of order. The remedy at issue is explicit that an appeal lies only to AE, which prevails over the part of the general appeals and modification provision allowing an AN appeal. Contrary to some assertions in the AN thread, the general appeals and modification provision was enacted by a motion of the committee and is no more policy than a remedy in a particular case. This wording of this remedy is no accident, either - the original version (in the GGTF case, decided while I was on the committee) was intentionally written to exclude non-AE appeals. The other argument raised, that the protection only attaches to the action of "uninvolved" administrators so that question of involvement can be raised elsewhere, is equally without merit given the presumption of validity that attaches to enforcement actions. That said, because it appears likely that an AE appeal would have reached the same conclusion, I don't think we need to take further action on the appeal venue.
  On the merits, I find fourth diff to be particularly unacceptable and more than sufficient to justify a block under the remedy. However, in light of intervening events, I'm tentatively of the opinion that a reblock is not necessary in this instance and a strong warning along the lines suggested by Dennis would be sufficient. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess what I don't understand is why the response to Katie wasn't "Sorry, I can see how it looks like I was talking about you, but I wasn't. My bad." Once again, just like the RFAR itself, we're at a point where I would normally just ignore the whole mess and let whatever happens happen, except that the person filing the report and the person doing the knee-jerk blocking are both more damaging to the situation than TRM is.

So, I actually have no strong opinion on whether to sanction TRM further, and can be ignored by both the pro- and the con- sides when trying to determine if there's a consensus. But I wonder if a possible outcome of a discussion among uninvolved admins would be that Mike V no longer be allowed to block TRM, and Andrew D no longer be allowed to tattle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that I am considered an involved administrator. I have only interacted with TRM in an administrative capacity and the policy states that, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I believe this policy is being misconstrued. It's intended to prevent an admin and an editor from engaging in say, a topic discussion, and then blocking that editor for 3RR. I have not interacted with TRM in his topic areas, such as Errors or main page content. @Floquenbeam: I think your proposal does not show proper judgement. Instead of addressing the issue, placing such restrictions would only allow us to pretend that there isn't an issue with the conduct displayed. "Less damage" would have occurred if TRM maintained a more civil composure. Finally, I stand by the merits of the original block. The edits were insulting and directed towards other contributors, which was a clear breach of the arbitration remedy. Mike V • Talk 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Dennis Brown and T. Canens on a "strong, final warning" as an appropriate outcome. As Dennis said: "TRM really does need to dial it back a couple of notches. He's often right on the merits but horribly wrong on the delivery." Some allowance does need to be made for editing in a difficult and important area, and TRM does do some thankless work at ITN/ERRORS/DYK etc. But "grow a pair" and similar remarks are unambiguously abusive/belittling and unhelpful. Neutrality^talk 18:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS/WP:1RR:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 14:25, 14 December 2016: SPECIFICO reverts this edit of mine.
2. 14:28, 14 December 2016: SPECIFICO reverts this edit of mine.
3. 20:49, 14 December 2016: I warned SPECIFICO to self-revert, but they have ignored the message.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23:12, 22 April 2014: SPECIFICO is topic banned from the Ludwig von Mises Institute; see evidence of misconduct.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

1. 22:13, 3 May 2016: SPECIFICO is notified of DS by User:Coffee.
2. SPECIFICO routinely leaves DS notices on the talk pages of other users, usually after a disagreement, (see, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), but lashes out when the shoe is on the other foot.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's almost certainly not a coincidence that SPECIFICO reverted my edits in particular. Other users have noticed SPECIFICO's pattern of "misguided...at best" misrepresentation of my words and requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me; shortly before the reverts, SPECIFICO told another user "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned." SPECIFICO's only other revert at 2016 United States election interference by Russia was of material I expanded. (SPECIFICO's interest in baiting me into a ban appears to be motivated by SPIs I filed against User:Oneshotofwhiskey; they were all vindicated and Oneshot was indeffed, but SPECIFICO characterized them as "paranoid conspiracy theories about opponents," after having previously opposed a topic ban related to Oneshot's conduct at Dinesh D'Souza and complimented Oneshot's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments"—like this and this, presumably.)

• SPECIFICO previously broke 1RR on November 22 with these reverts (again of material I added) at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, though it did not occur to me to report them at that time.

I am also concerned by SPECIFICO's penchant for immediately threatening others users with sanctions on dubious grounds—which SPECIFICO has done twice just within the past several hours; User:Soham321 previously criticized SPECIFICO's proclivity for "frivolous threats" here at AE. (Note that in none of these three instances did SPECIFICO actually follow through and report the user they threatened, while SPECIFICO now denies "that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful" was intended as a threat.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. 00:03, 15 December 2016: I notified SPECIFICO that I had filed this AE report, having given them the chance to self-revert.

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

SPECIFICO and I were able to work things out [9], and I assume good faith that the notification is just a notification with no ill intentions. As for this arbitration enforcement report itself, I agree with the analysis by Dennis Brown at [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: This is where I plead ignorance. Recall that I did not report these reverts for the very reason you describe. However, SPECIFICO recently filed a frivolous 1RR "report" against me on your talk page, even though they never explained what I had supposedly "reverted" in the first diff cited. User:Volunteer Marek—who later struck out his comment after realizing I did not make the revert in question—attempted to draw a distinction between what you call "a single revert that used two edits" and what he dubbed "two different reverts." In that case, SPECIFICO seemed content to threaten me merely for making more than one edit to an article, and continues to insist that a second, unspecified revert occurred. (Obvious Oneshot socks have had no luck finding anyone that agrees with SPECIFICO's assessment; as User:Hut 8.5 remarked: "If you're going to accuse people of 1RR violations then you need to show that the edits in question were reverts, that is they undid something someone else did. There's nothing necessarily wrong with editing the article twice in 24 hours if the edits aren't reverts.")

I confess to being frankly baffled by the DS on American Politics, because there seems to be no consistent criteria for how they are applied in practice. SPECIFICO has twice reverted two distinct edits of mine in two different sections of two articles and faced no penalty—but that same user pushed hard to have me topic banned not for violating 1RR, but rather the additional stipulation "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" (which has been consistently abused by WP:BATTLEGROUND editors)—and, in your telling, came very close to succeeding (although non-admins were almost unanimously opposed). If I had made these reverts, it seems almost certain SPECIFICO would have reported me—after all, they've reported me for much less—and there's a very good chance I would not have escaped sanction.

(Of course, the thrust of the complaint against me soon became a handful of uncivil edit summaries; should I add an appendix on uncivil remarks by SPECIFICO? Do you think I could get away with casually threatening editors the way SPECIFICO does, as documented above? How about the time SPECIFICO accused me of "tendentiously canvassing" another user by informing them of an SPI I had initiated against the IP they were interacting with? WP:CANVASS has a specific meaning, though I've never heard it applied to SPIs: Should SPECIFICO be allowed to use the word as a random insult if they have no intention of pursuing what would be a serious violation of Wikipedia policy? SPECIFICO has clearly been skirting on the edge of what is acceptable for a very long time now, and failing to warn against that sort of conduct will only encourage more of it.)

So, you tell me: If these edits had been made by two different users, would SPECIFICO then have violated 1RR? What if SPECIFICO had reverted three or four edits of mine in quick succession? (Would that be "a single revert that used three or four edits"?) I'm deeply concerned that consistent standards are articulated here—not least of all because the total lack of consistency has allowed SPECIFICO to plausibly threaten users and coerce self-reverts even when the underlying policy rationale is far from obvious. (If SPECIFICO had asked me to self-revert rather than immediately running to you, I would have done so, even though I did nothing wrong.) It's as if the rules only apply to the outgroup, not the ingroup or the Wikilawyers; editors know where they stand and act accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Two sequential reverts are generally considered a single revert, as it isn't easy to make two changes in one edit without editing the page as a whole. From my perspective, this is a single revert that used two edits. There was no back and forth going on. I think I just closed an AE on you, TTAAC, in as gentle a way as I could given the support to topic ban you. I don't recommend climbing on a high horse here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already explained it, there is no need to try to drag it to an illogical extreme. This isn't new, and is in fact, standard operating procedure. If it were three or four, the result would be the same if the intent is clear. You can discuss the merits on the talk page of the article, but for the purpose of AE, it is not a 1RR violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of this is meandering and not really AE specific. What happened on my talk page is meaningless and was worked out before I even saw the page. You brought the case, you were mistaken in how you interpreted 1RR. It isn't automatically intuitive, but if you think about what I said, it should make sense. He committed ONE act of reverting, it just took took two edits because they weren't in the same section. His intent was clear, demonstrated by only 3 minutes between edits. Had it been an hour, then it could be argued it wasn't a "singular" act, but was two acts. The rest isn't helpful to answer here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree wholeheartedly with Dennis. Try to step back from the drama. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This report is frivolous. T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As my name's been invoked, I'm going to have to agree with Dennis above. Hut 8.5 07:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tlroche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons :

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29
2. WP:BLPBAN as superseded by motion.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 01:36, 15 December 2016 Adds info related to multiple WP:BLPs to source that fails WP:RELIABLE -- at page currently under 1RR arbitration restrictions.
2. 03:08, 15 December 2016 Reverts to add back in, against strong talk page consensus not to do so. All users in that discussion except the party himself were in agreement not to have this material in the article.
3. 04:44, 15 December 2016 Violates the 1RR arbitration restriction, adds back material again to same article.
4. 04:38, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:No legal threats, calls a talk page comment where I warned him about using someone else's signature without their permission as "slander".
5. 05:00, 15 December 2016 Does same, again.
6. 01:20, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:BLP, adds material to sources that fail WP:RELIABLE about multiple living persons, example source Consortiumnews.com, reasoning why unreliable at [11].
7. 04:33, 15 December 2016, same, with edit summary of: revert vandalism, undo unreliable Fox News quote (retaining link)
8. 05:35, 15 December 2016 Same, same article, same edit summary. Unfortunately, this version of WP:BLP-violating material to unreliable sources is in the article at present.
9. 05:39, 15 December 2016 Violates WP:NPA, violates WP:AGF, with: I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal.
10. 06:27, 15 December 2016 Disruption at the BLP noticeboard itself.
11. 06:39, 15 December 2016 Same, again.
12. 06:59, 15 December 2016 Same, again.
13. 15:56, 15 December 2016 Violates 1RR restrictions, again, at article under arbitration enforcement restrictions. This time was after having been notified of being reported here to arbitration enforcement. Violated again anyways.
14. 14:09, 15 December 2016 Labels his disruptive editing as "revert vandalism".
15. 15:46, 15 December 2016 Again, same.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

1. 20:59, 13 December 2016 Large notice of discretionary sanctions placed at top of talk page.
2. 02:22, 14 December 2016‎ Big red edit-notice warning of 1RR per arbitration discretionary sanctions. Template created by EdJohnston before edits to the page by the user.
3. 02:27, 15 December 2016 Discretionary sanctions alert.
4. 03:13, 15 December 2016 Notified via edit summary by MrX: Unacceptable source and READ THE EDIT NOTICE: Don't restore material that has been reverted uness there is consensus to do so.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. User was aware of the discretionary sanctions. [12]
2. User was aware of the 1RR restrictions. [13]
3. User was aware of talk page consensus against him, that the source in question that mentioned multiple WP:BLPs violated WP:RELIABLE. [14]
4. User chose to add the offending material back in and violate the 1RR restriction, WP:BLP, and WP:RELIABLE, anyways. [15] [16]

Analysis by SashiRolls (talk · contribs) is wrong. Please see this explanation by Neutrality at [17], warning the user in question about misuse of word "slander". Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ks0stm:Thank you for taking action here. Additionally, I object to SashiRolls (talk · contribs) using this page as a forum to cast aspersions against me, in unrelated matters. This is at least the second time SashiRolls has done this: 7 December 2016 and 15 December 2016. The 7 December incident was in a completely unrelated section at this page for Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo. This clearly appears to be violation of WP:NPA and WP:FORUMSHOP. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ks0stm:I was seeking out advice from admins as to how and where to report SashiRolls. The admins gave me helpful advice and told me ANI or AE. I have not done that. As for his repeated complaints against me, they were addressed at ANI and closed by Black Kite at [18]. Now, unfortunately, he is again attempting to make yet another Arbitration Enforcement about me personally instead of the subject in question who was blocked. [19] and [20]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ks0stm:I have made zero frivolous filings to Arbitration Enforcement. After my report on Solntsa90, user was blocked three months by EdJohnston [21]. After my report on Ag97, user was topic-banned by the community with close by KrakatoaKatie [22]. After my report on Tlroche, user was blocked by Ks0stm [23]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Timotheus CanensI agree with you about the first edit to WP:BLPN that it may have been innocuous and the subsequent repeat edit was not. I placed those in evidence hear to show overall a pattern of disruption, not that the first edit itself was disruption. My apologies that I did not make that more clear initially. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 05:18, 15 December 2016 Notification given. Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

This out of control editor has also been reported to WP:ANEW.This editor needs to be blocked, topic banned, or both. They are some sort of mission to promote Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and I'm guessing they have a COI. They are brazenly ignoring multiple talk page warnings, edit summaries reverting their edits, article talk page discussion, and the prominent edit notice. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.

Their reaction to a polite, non-template message with diffs from an admin asking them to be more careful: "false neutrality removed".

I wonder if this time we could actually use AE as it's intended and have an admin take the appropriate action to stop the blatant POV pushing, edit warring, and incivility. AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion. - MrX 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merit of this case (or lack thereof) is best demonstrated by diff 4 where Sagecandor reproaches the accused (Tlroche) for saying they (Sagecandor) made a slanderous accusation. Careful analysis of the diffs provided by the accused show the accused to be right, Tlroche merely added a signature where Sagecandor forgot to sign.

This case should not be decided without looking more carefully into the accuser's history, especially this case at ANI and this talk page deletion which together seem to indicate a strong aversion to transparency. (as in the bogus diff 4 & 5 above). SashiRolls (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some characteristic diffs showing that Sagecandor is not at all averse to making personal attacks or denouncing people without transparency. (I'm not the only one who he's denounced without pinging -- more diffs available if necessary):

1. Denounces me to my supervising admin (no ping): [24]
2. Denounces me (without mentioning my name) to an admin I don't know (no ping): [25]: Black Kite's response is here (mine is visible as well).
3. Denounces me (as a Russian propaganda account) on NPOV/N (no ping): [26] -- SashiRolls (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the terrain, I understand why Tlroche could become frustrated as many editors have on those pages where Sagecandor is most active. Cf. Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles, where nearly every page mentioned refers to this editor. (As has also been a recent trend on AE, if you look back through the recent bans & blocks. We mustn't forget [27] in addition to those SC mentions (at AE)... there is method to this, if the AE administrators are willing to take the time to look into it, it may save embarrassment later. ) SashiRolls (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been falsely claimed below that I have "cast aspersions". Merriam-Webster, a standard dictionary of American English, gives the following definition of "aspersions" : "a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation". I would ask anyone who has accused me of casting aspersions to either show that I have done so, by indicating how any of the above statements are false or misleading" or redact their statements as the unwarranted personal attacks that they are. I have cast no aspersions, I have simply cited verifiable and true facts (providing all the diffs necessary for verifiability). I have never filed an AE report, therefore it strikes me as unlikely I am wasting administrators time here. I also have not commented on any cases currently on the page except this one. This is not the case for several users. I have however provided proof, and I suppose that this is what is considered disruptive? (trying to understand why some editor's have more rights than others: sagecandor, for example, has commented on several cases he was not involved in, in addition to bringing this complaint (and being involved in creating the ambiance which created it) along with several others (4 weeks after creating his account). I, on the other hand, have avoided the most visibly contentious pages Sagecandor is working on because I could tell editing there would not be productive. SashiRolls (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Joseph Wood, your link does not work. This link lists my edits (here), but does not include AE, where as a matter of fact I *have* had to respond to a number of false claims (both in my own case and in other cases where people have brought things up to discredit me that were extraneous to the cases at hand: it was necessary to defend myself from the innuendos). Insofar as I was not an experienced editor when I was first brought here (and still am not); I thought it important to provide a great deal of evidence, which led me to contribute too much in that original case: and as such my defense was not read. But that is the main reason my edit count on this page is high: responding to innuendo.

Here the question is whether this opened case should also boomerang against the OP for his role in angering Tlroche. I, obviously, think it should, based in part on the evidence presented above which show inappropriate personal attacks (#3) and inappropriate behavior (#1, #2) towards me. Again, the diff #4 presented by Sagecandor above is characteristic of the sorts of "misleading diffs" on offer: for making clear that he was not the author of Sagecandor's comment, Tlroche finds himself accused of forgery / acting with malicious intent. This is one sort of behavior that creates a poisonous editing environment. There are plenty of others that Wikipedia rules do prevent me from speaking of, but which are also clearly visible on the pages in question, and which have been noted by many editors, as I pointed out above. Many of these editors have been banned, rather than heard. SashiRolls (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is more in regards to SashiRolls' comments here. The relevant policies are WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. There's no reason for them to show up here and based on some flimsy excuse use this as a forum to attack another editor whom they happen to dislike.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrX and Sagecandor. Particularly concerning re: Tlroche is his/her comment here: "I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal. ... I will continue to add valuable content as I see fit." Tlroche basically has expressed an open disdain for consensus.

As to SashiRolls, I agree with Volunteer Marek and would merely note that this is part of a pattern of behavior. Neutrality^talk 19:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't count the page and talk they're TBANNED from, this is Sashi's sixth most edited page on Wikipedia. They're off topic comments here have only resulted in more off topic comments (like this one). Support restricting AE comments on requests they are not a party to. Drama central is that way. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Blocked 60 hours for violating the 1RR at 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I'll leave this open since there may be a case to be made for discussing a topic ban or some other remedy as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking closer at the actual diffs, the tone, the aggressiveness....all this tells me this is someone who doesn't play nice with others. I would support an indef topic ban from American Politics 32+. I don't see this as something we can "fix" with shorter sanctions, so the goal is to remove him altogether so that more reasonable editors can do what they do. I would support a shorter Tban, but think indef is the right call here. This isn't saying there aren't other problems with other editors, which I may look at later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for SashiRolls, the more I look, the worse it becomes for Sashi. I'm not sure what is the best solution, but will just say that in general, I support sanctions that limit them from disrupting at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The first two BLP noticeboard edits seem more like confusion to me rather than intentional disruption, but the subsequent repeat edit is more problematic as the issue had already been correctly fixed, so there's no conceivable justification for it. Sagecandor should avoid characterizing the occasional innocuous though misguided edit as disruption.

  That said, I agree with Dennis that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate for Tlroche based on the rest of the diffs.

  As for SashiRolls, I'm inclined towards a restriction prohibiting them from commenting in AE requests to which they are not a party. If they want to file a request against Sagecandor, they are free to do so, but casting aspersions in unrelated AE threads is utterly unhelpful. T. Canens (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The obvious edit-warring behaviour against clear consensus is an indication that Tiroche doesn't respect how WP operates. I'd support an indef TBAN, although I would prefer a shorter one, say, one year, on the basis that some people can learn from their mistakes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mike V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

See below

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In no less than 24 hours from the closure of the previous AE filing, it appears that TRM has continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. He has made personal attacks towards myself, including: not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying ... To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin, Mike will just use IRC and find an Arbcom/Mike-sympathetic admin to do the dirty work behind the scenes, Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all., and equating my warning and block to lynching and character assassination.

TRM's uncivil behavior has extended to DYK when another editor asked him a question and he responded in a belittling fashion: I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. It was followed up with: Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! and No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that.

Finally, TRM has made insults towards some of the arbitration committee candidates: Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly! and Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here!

I am asking that you take a look at TRM's behavior and action it as appropriate. Mike V • Talk 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Stellar waste of time, most diffs out of context or actually just statements of fact. Am on the road so can't respond for some time but hoping that we don't have another Mike V trigger finger block before I get a chance to respond. Mike V has still failed to respond to my request for him to redact the two accusations of lying, by the way. Perhaps we could ping the other people in those talk situations to see how "belittled" and/or insulted they felt! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request is inextricably linked with Mike V's erroneous warning to me about infringing an IBAN. This also needs to be resolved, i.e. the report needs to be fixed to remove my name and the warning needs to be removed or caveated on my talkpage. Then the whole sorry saga is over until Mike V makes his inevitable return, having avoided any kind of admonishment by "disappearing". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the erroneous post can be found here where Mike V makes an untrue allegation about a "violation of [my] interaction ban". He was provided with plenty of evidence and time to redact this himself yet he failed to do anything about it whatsoever, and now he's "disappeared" it seems he's left the job to someone else to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V's "disappearing act" is a good way to avoid further scrutiny, as the premature closure of this thread has already indicated. It certainly strikes me that an individual that is apparently trusted with tools such as Checkuser and Oversight, on top of Admin, should not be behaving in this fashion. If we really, truly our admins to WP:ADMINACCT (and that's the main reason I was desysopped), and if we genuinely believe the super-tools are for those super-trusted users, I think we should have confidence that they won't embark on vendettas or stalk editors or use off-wiki methods to collude in blocking people, or ignore requests for accountability for 13 days. Whether Mike V returns or not is irrelevant; he should probably be stripped of all such functionary bits pending a clear indication that he will not do this kind of thing ever again, if only to protect the integrity of those other functionaries who don't do this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, at Mike's RFA, he stated In practically every situation on wikipedia, discussion is key. yet has since made so many drastic and undiscussed decisions. Irony, or just something he said to get the bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T. Canens you may personally feel that but the AE discussion and community consensus disagrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate action would be a block of Mike V. for baiting. Really, it seems as if everyone by now has said to you that the original warning yu gaev which started all this was wrong. Your defense has been (paraphrased, duh): "I am not wrong", "I had no time between handing out that warning and speedily giving a block two weeks later to the same user to attend to this", and "I am not wrong, and I can't hear you". His examples above include things like I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. If he isn't allowed to say something like that any longer, then some people really have become way, WAY too thin skinned. But perhaps it is just an "admin" looking for an excuse to block the editor again who got him ridiculed at AN, ANI, AE, and a slew of user talk pages?

Mike V., you are only making a fool of yourself. Please boomerang close this. Fram (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: thanks, but I hope someone else will do the honour. I would be accused of being involved, being wikifriends with you (I have an archived ANI discussion from this year to prove them wrong though :-D ), and so on. Probably by the same people that claimed that MikeV wan't involved because they had no article conflict with TRM. Fram (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Fram, if you wish to block Mike V for stirring up trouble and skirting around a recently placed community ban, you have my support. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Would really rather I did not use any tools myself against Mike V lest it appear as a witch hunt, but you are right : a full protection of his talk page is against the protection policy (vis: "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page."). I would only sanction this if Mike V's page was being persistently vandalised by sockpuppets over the 30/500 limit, which definitely is not the case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I've unprotected the talk page, but not touched anything else as I only want to undo what is unambiguously against policy and nothing else. I think redirecting your talk page to userspace is okay (eg: see User talk:Scott) so I'll leave that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above as well. It would be wonderful if we could move on from this war against TRM. I'd probably be frustrated too and say things I'd regret if I were him. I don't condone everything he has said, but it is concerning to me that criticism of an administrator's actions is considered a 'personal attack' by that person. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everyone above - Continuing this is waste of time and right now if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike!, I suggest this gets speedy closed and I would also suggest Mike moves on!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best for everyone if everyone just steps away from this dispute for a bit. However, I would ask that someone please undo Mike V's indefinite full protection of his own talk page ([28]), that is inappropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: that's what I meant by "inappropriate", yeah. Thanks for adding the policy link. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best for all involved to have a cup of tea at this point. I'm reminded of the phrase flogging a dead horse. Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: when you say "blocking a Functionary is unprecedented", I think what you mean is that it would be unprecedented to block a functionary and leave him a functionary. This episode has left in tatters Mike V's fitness to perform even the public functions of an admin; that he be allowed behind-the-scenes functions such as CU, oversight, and supervising edit filters and Arbcom elections is now, IMO, beyond the pale. He not only lacks judgment, but refuses to accept that he's seriously mistaken when literally dozens of editors (including admins) tell him so directly. How can we trust him with hidden roles that support the very fabric of the community? Even if he avoids desysopping (and I hope that will be given serious consideration given his latest foray into wasting everyone's time) I submit he should be immediately stripped of all roles other than admin.

I think it's interesting that Mike V's response to being rebuked as an admin is to simply take his ball and go home, instead of returning to improving the encyclopedia in other ways – except of course he has no experience doing that. That confirms my longstanding impression that he sees his role here not as to help in building an encyclopedia, but rather as playing enforcer. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. EEng 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator and frankly, continuing to let him behave this way only further proves the massive issues with the current administrative staff. --Tarage (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I agree with some folks above who say that everyone simply needs to step away at this point. Apparently neither party has acted optimally. The moon is full and we're all going off the rails. Let's calm down for a bit. TRM is understandably frustrated that he has been desysopped and is unable to use his tools to fix the main page -- the accuracy of which he cares about passionately, more than anyone else, and it is a very good thing that he does care passionately about it. The main page would probably be a mess without him. His frustration has come out in verbiage -- the style of which isn't going to change completely overnight, nor should we expect it to, given that he can't fix the things he could so easily fix before. (All of that said, maybe TRM could use a short break from the mainpage, just to clear his mind. Just thinking aloud here.) Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences. I think he needs to back way off or an RFAR may be the next stop. To avoid all of these consequences, can we please all just drop it and cut everyone a little slack for the time being? Softlavender (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the call to block Mike V is heeded here, it seems extremely likely that Mike V's response would be to go to ArbCom. Since desysopping appears to be the actual desired result of many commenting here, then the case would have to go to ArbCom, since they're the only ones that can do that. Therefore, I suggest that this case be closed (for whatever reason) and someone (TRM, Fram, Ritchie, whoever) file a desysop case with ArbCom, since that's the only place where it can be properly ajudicated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Mike's statement was originally posted on my user talkpage, and I pointed him here to the correct venue. That said, after looking at the diffs and how weak the majority of them are, this seems like retaliation for the rebuke Mike got at AN. Contrary to some of the opinions posted above I don't think a block of Mike V is called for at this time (not to mention that, as far as I know, blocking a Functionary is unprecedented). However, I think it clear that Mike needs to cool off for a while, before there is a serious push to block and/or remove the tools. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As a purely procedural comment, blocking of functionaries is certainly not unprecedented. On at least one occasion a serving arbitrator has been blocked for disruption (albeit it was overturned very quickly). ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. I believe we can safely say that this situation is nearly-unprecedented. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @EEng: You're largely correct. However, we need to think about what's going on here. This situation seems to have been following the Gamaliel pattern. However, it doesn't need to follow that through to its unfortunate conclusion. Mike has done a lot of good things for the project over the years, and I don't think anybody wants to lose him. I think the best thing to do would be to give him some breathing room and time to think. This pressure on him is certainly not helping. We may find that there are extenuating circumstances, or that after a few days he's willing to sincerely apologize for the lapse in judgment and move on. Then the community can decide how to proceed from there. I urge some calm and patience, and for everybody to please put down the WP:PITCHFORKS. All of this has happened before, but it doesn't have to happen again. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal TRM has asked, repeatedly, for the log entries of the warning and block to be explicitly overturned, so that it can't be used as evidence in future issues. Personally, I think he's right, and that that would help in putting out this fire instead of adding more gasoline to it. Pinging admins who have already commented here @Iridescent, Drmies, Black Kite, Dennis Brown, and Floquenbeam: We may not be able to completely redact them within the bounds of policy, but we can vacate them by consensus and strikethrough the log entries. Thoughts? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strikethrough and/or annotate, don't delete outright. They need to be preserved in some form, as they'll be evidence in the near-inevitable Arbcom case resulting from this, but I agree that they need to be explicitly marked as invalid to prevent the mark-of-Cain effect. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm OK with striking the interaction ban warning. I'm strongly against striking the block, which was more than justified by one of the diffs presented in that AE request, and overturned out of process. T. Canens (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Functionaries (or admins, or arbs) are not above the law. I think even Pope Francis agrees with that. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Mike V needs to take into account much of what was posted in the admin noticeboard thread. The only thing that is going to result from this is an ArbCom case debating whether to remove Mike V's admin bit, which quite frankly given this behaviour is an action I'd currently support. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On looking further, I note that Mike V currently holds CU and OS permissions. Given that we require holders of those permissions to hold to the highest levels of behaviour, I believe this needs to go to ArbCom, unless the situation described by The Wordsmith above transpires. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be bumped up to Arb. We lack the tools and authority to review the real problem here. I'm not recommending harsh action, simply stating there is a problem that we can't address at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since my close of this thread was reopened by TRM, my closing statement was removed (something that would have likely driven several people in this thread to hysteria if it had been done to them). But instead I'll just copy it here, for posterity: "Considering all the blocks, unblocks, AN threads, ANI threads, AE reports, and retirements in the last few days, it looks like everyone is finally exhausted from stabbing each other in the eye with forks. Well, that's not true, I think there are still a few unstabbed eyeballs and a few people with forks, but the community in general has probably had enough. Jauerback says "let it go", and that seems like excellent advice for a week ago, and pretty good advice now. " I guess there are more people that still have forks than I'd hoped. Enjoy your Arbcom case, folks, I'm sure it will be a blast. I'm out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is going to adjust the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man log in relation to Mike V's erroneous claim that I infringed the IBAN please? This thread keeps getting closed without actually dealing with this issue which is as important as Mike V's status as a functionary. Can one of the admins so keen to shut this down please make an appropriate comment at the log to the effect that the community agreed that Mike V's assessment of my actions was incorrect. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So... numerous people call for sanctions against an administrator, including other administrators, and the result is "let's just stop talking about this"? Are you kidding me? Are you forgetting who brought this here in the first place? --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of admins have tried to close this down a couple of times. It seems inevitable that the next approach is an Arbcom case to see Mike V relinquished of his tools. But of course, and as I've already been accused of multiple times, that would be "sour grapes", not just "due diligence". Ho hum, not in the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:AA2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 9 December 03:47
2. 9 December 02:28

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 19 May 2016 by Coffee. Received a block for violating topic ban on 27 May 2016 by Coffee. Topic ban extended to 6 months on 27 May 2016 by Coffee.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is one of the shortest reports I've filed simply because the POV is self-evident and the user's history is so disruptive that it just had to be reported. Abbatai removes the word 'Nazi' in this edit when it comes to Azeris, but adds it in the lead of an Armenian article a few minutes later. A bit of a history lesson here: the Armenische Legion and the Aserbaidschanische Legion were both foreign units of the Wehrmacht. Armenians (like Dro) and Azeris all fought alongside the German Army during those days. However, according to Abbatai, the Azeris should not be designated Nazis, but the Armenians should. It can't get any clearer POV pushing than that. Given this user's disruptive POV pushing history, there should be serious consideration as to whether he should be topic-banned once more.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

@My very best wishes: Yup, and the "should be fixed" part is where AE comes in. While one ethnic group retains the characterization of fighting for the SS and the other for Nazi Germany, that must have a consequence in terms of POV-pushing edits, especially considering the user's disruptive history. I guess he hasn't learned his lesson. Even you had to admit it by saying "it should be fixed". Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: it looks like Mvbw corrected his mistake...and so should you. This user has an obsession with adding the word Nazi to Dro's article for almost a year now [30]. Oh yeah, and other Armenian articles too [31][32]. And the fact that he removed the word Nazi from the Aserbaidschanische Legion should ring some POV alarm bells. Also, with his most recent edit, the user has added repetitive information about the Armenische Legion. I'd like to ask Abbatai, how many times should the fact that Dro fought for the Nazis/Wehrmacht be included in the lead, or better yet, throughout Wikipedia? Above all, these edits may seem reasonable if his motives weren't disingenuous, hence making them not so reasonable. After all, we're trying to decipher a pattern here, a pattern that has continued for quite some time now. Fresh off of a lengthy topic ban, Abbatai hasn't learned his lesson and goes back to the same POV pushing. In other words, we're not dealing with merely two edits here, but a disruptive show of events stretching back for years. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: If these diffs were the only two disruptive edits this user has done in his Wikipedia career, I'd agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that Abbatai has been POV pushing for quite some time now, and these two edits are just part of a much larger problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I'm not telling you to go fish. I've provided you two diffs that when contrasted reveals quite obvious POV editing. If we believe that it's POV, which seems to be the case by most users' opinions on this thread, that would mean this user is continuing the POV pushing editing pattern that has gotten him in trouble too many times before. So why should these problematic edits be treated any different from the others that got him sanctioned? After all the bans and blocks, we should be more critical of his problematic behavior, not less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

In my both edits mentioned above the intention was to give clearer and more precise additional information about certain issues here It is more appropriate to put "Azeri SS Volunteer Formations" instead of a broad description like "Nazi Azeri troops". And this edit as well clearly done to give sourced information to avoid any confusion since Drastamat Kanayan led another Armenian Legion during WW1.--Abbatai 12:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield I believe you and EtienneDolet confuse Iğdır Province with Iğdır city. The province is quite a new thing its history starts from 1992. However the Russian Census was on Iğdır City. The boundaries and demography of Iğdır Province and city are different. It has been stated on the talk page of EtienneDolet and history of the page. Your claims about my edits on 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt are off-topic and not true considering WP:AA2. However feel free to fill a complaint or edit the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt if you still have doubts. --Abbatai 10:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [33]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist" below. I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--Abbatai 18:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield Thank you for confirming my point below section filled against EtienneDolet. The edits ED cited here for sanction has nothing to do with you. why are you here? Again you are here for WP:SANCTIONGAME.--Abbatai 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

diff #1. Including info about the legion of the Wehrmacht seems be appropriate. However, trying to "over-explain" it, i.e. saying "Wehrmacht, the armed forces of the Nazi Germany" was excessive and should be fixed. But this looks to me as a minor content dispute.

diff #2. Telling "SS Volunteer Formations" means basically the same as "Nazi troops", but more precise. Therefore, I think that was actually an improvement by Abbatai.

I do not see any reason for sanctions based on these two diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text prior to this edit (diff #1) already tells that "he led the Armenian Legion". Now, the user adds exactly the same information second time in intro, but with conjunction to "Nazi". At the first glance, this look like typical nationalistic POV-pushing. Given previous editing history, some sanctions might be appropriate, although this particular edit alone I think would hardly be sufficient to justify any sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Étienne Dolet. I agree with Dennis and Peacemaker67. Single edit is not enough, and the edits must be recent. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject, but I can tell that no, these two edits are not necessarily problematic, even when taken together. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits [34] and [35] -- when contrasted with each other as noted by the original poster -- is definitely problematic. The topic ban by Coffee was only back in May 2016. Then a block [36], then an extension of the topic ban [37]. Last topic ban was 6 months, suggest one year. Sagecandor (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When they taken together (as they should be, given the subject similarity and that there was only a short time period between each edit) the editing aim looks dubious. The first chronologically [38] was, by itself, innocuous, indeed reasonable - it simply removed a pipe and revealed the name of the actual article. But the second [39] does not remove the pipe, it retains it and then overeggs it. There are other recent diffs suggesting pov editing - here is a removal of content mentioning the existence of Armenians living in the Igdir valley before its annexation by Turkey, plus content mentioning that Kurds are the current majority population: [40]. The Kurdish majority vs Azeri majority claims seems to be an ongoing edit war. Abbatai has jumped in to continue it - which is strange, given that Abbatai in the talk page appears to be agreeing that the source being advocated for the Azeri majority claim is not rs. The deleted Armenia-related content has been done under the guise of agreeing with those who are disputing the Kurdish majority claim. The last talk page discussion regarding the region's former Armenian population was back in 2007 - if there is an issue with what exactly the Russian population statistics are referring to (the city or the region) and where in the article it should be mentioned then that should be addressed in the talk page and not be used as an excuse to blank mention of Igdir's Armenian past. Here is another troubling edit [41] - the deletion of Kemalist-related material from 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. The edit summary justification "there is not even one single source claiming Kemalists were behind coup attempt" misrepresents even the article's own content, which from its start has had sourced content explaining that the coup group's name, Peace at Home Council, was derived from Kemal Atatürk's saying 'Peace at Home, Peace in the World', and that choice of name together with their statement either indicated actual Kemalist involvement or a misdirection attempt to imply Kemalist involvement. The edit mentioned by ED that initiated Abbatai's recent block for topic ban violation also involved pov editing - again it was the deletion of a mention of Armenians - [42]. Adding Urartu was a valid addition to have made, but not as an excuse to delete the equally valid mention of Armenians. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai - AA2 can extend to Turkey, and the content you deleted, Kemalism, arguably does fall under AA2. But I was citing that edit as an example of problematic editing and edit summarizing, not as a further addition to AA2 sanctionable edits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the number of diffs here is small, the issue is one quality rather than quantity. The Igdir diff [43] is particularly problematic. He removes perfectly well-sourced material simply because he doesn't like it (Abbatai is somewhat obsessed with minorities in Turkey), with a misleading edit summary. In my book it doesn't get any worse than that (except edit-warring over it). Then he files a frivolous, retaliatory AE report against EtienneDolet, clear evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Most importantly, Abbatai has already been topic banned, for exactly this kind of behavior. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He was topic banned, then given another chance, and now he is engaging in exactly the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. Enough. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• There may or may not be POV concerns, but looking at these two edits together, I'm hard pressed to sanction. I looked at this yesterday before My very best wishes commented here, but he sums up my feelings well. If they are POV problems, they aren't obvious and I think it might be reaching into someone's head and trying to figure out their motives on what seems like reasonable edits. That doesn't mean they are "correct" or he has no POV, just that I don't see the problem with the evidence given. The second edit in particular seems good faith given that the term is used throughout the article. I can't see issuing sanctions here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • EtienneDolet it is up to you to present enough evidence to make a determination, not just a claim and tell us to go fishing. Based on the evidence presented, I agree with Peacemaker67 that there is probably an issue but not enough to use the ban hammer. A strong warning is likely a better solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There just is not enough here for a sanction. I agree that differentiating between two lots of opportunistic client groups of Nazi Germany is probably POV-pushing, but I'd want to see a lot more diffs before I'd be convinced there is enough here to take action on. I suggest a stern warning to Abbatai to edit neutrally especially when dealing with Armenians and Azeris. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, the reporting editor has the responsibility to provide diffs, two marginal diffs and ambit claims about past behaviour are not enough. On the basis of what has actually been provided here, there is not enough for a TBAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further clarification. I believe that (given the report below and looking the editing history in more depth) there is evidence of battleground behaviour and that an admonishment to that effect would probably be the best approach at this time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree. I think there are problems on both sides, even if more so on Abbatai's side. If only one side is addressed, you setup a situation where it can be gamed, which these types of articles are famous for. They bludgeon each other until one gets banned, which doesn't help the neutrality. They both need to talk more, edit less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm closing both WP:AE#Abbatai and WP:AE#Etienne Dolet per the reasoning at the bottom of the Etienne Dolet admin discussion. No sanctions, but a logged warning to both. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAA2, WP:GAME, WP:NOTHERE

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [44] Drastamat Kanayan, 11 December 2016
2. [45] Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, 11 December 2016
3. [46] Iğdır Province, 1 December 2016
4. [47]Iğdır Province, 11 December 2016
5. [48] Erzurum 4 December 2016
6. [49] Yerevan 4 December 2016
7. [50] Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery 7 December 2016
8. [51] Orontes I 30 October 2016
9. [52] Urartu 18 November 2016
10. [53] Erivan Khanate 13 October 2016
11. [54] Khanasor Expedition 8 July 2016

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

S/he has been varned several times by different editors.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

The user is aware of the discretionary sanctions as S/he is currently reports any user S/he disagree.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EtienneDolet has long history of deliberately POV-pushing and anti-Azeri sentiment. Lastly in the article Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II changed the wording "Azeri SS Volunteer Formations" to a very vague and problematic one "Nazi Azeri troops". On the other hand s/he removes sourced information from one of the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany about his leading of the Armenian Legion a military unit of Nazi Germany.

What's more on December 1 2016 EtienneDolet added misleading information to Iğdır Province about the demoraphy of the article which is completely irrelevant to province. EtienneDolet included the Russian Empire Census in 1897 Iğdır to the article. However, Iğdır became province in 1992 and its boundaries changed quite a lot compared to the times it was under Russian rule. Therefore, Iğdır Province has nothing to do with Russian Population Census on Iğdır City from 1897. The edit reverted by a user and another user warned EtienneDolet about the province in his/her talk but s/he hasn't engaged any collaboration and reverted the page once again. Although three editors disagree with him/her EtienneDolet ignores incorrectness of the edit just to insert Armenian Population wherever s/he can.

The editor interestingly adds Armenian name to the Turkish city of Erzurum however removes Turkish language etymology from Armenian capital Yerevan on the same day. Similarly removes the sourced information about contest of origin from the article Lavash.

EtienneDolet is a single-purposed editor and only here on Wikipedia to protect his Armenian POV, and does whatever he can to protect these Armenian related articles from whatever Turkish/Iranian/Azeri/Kurdish/Georgian influences.

Armenian/Turkish examples:

[55] Adding Armenian population data from 1897 Russian census to a province has history back only to 1992.

[56] Removing POV tag from the article which is quite biased; most sources are presenting Armenian side of the story and written in a nationalistic tone.

[57] Guenter Lewy who is a genocide scholar and worked on different genocides. The user adds only his views on Armenian Genocide to the lead of article.

Armenian/Iranian examples:

[58] adds Armenian name to the article about a king from Orontid Dynasty whose origin is disputed whether Armenian or Persian.

[59] again deleting sourced Persian name of Urartu and adding Armenian name.

Armenian/Azeri examples:

[60] removes the massacre category from Guba Genocide Memorial Complex although it is clearly stated the mass burials were during March Days massacres.

[61] Removing Azerbaijani name from Erivan Khanate where Azerbaijanis had sizeable population.

Armenian/Kurdish examples:

[62] The article clearly has no 3rd party source and was written in a Armenian Nationalistic tone claiming Armenians killed only men did not touch women of Kurdish Mazrik Tribe and the chief of the tribe escaped by wearing women's clothing. The only reliable internet source (In Turkish) from a left wing newspaper Radikal that has a different version of the story deleted by EtienneDolet. Again a very clear vandalism and sign of him her being pro-Armenian anti-Kurdish.

Armenain/Georgian Examples:

[63] Removing the wording claiming Georgian origin of Bagratuni dynasty without any consensus and discussion at the talk page.

EtienneDolet has also a long history of personnal attacks. Even in this thread he calls me and another user hypocrite and bold.

The user simply cannot explain his/her edits on Iğdır Province instead addresses me to go and discuss it on talk page and solve it there. However, regarding the AE above filled by EtienneDolet against me without discussing on related talk pages I don't see any integrity. Was it the same user calling me bold and hypocrite?--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG/help: I really value and appreciate your comment on the issue. However before jumping the Kurdish-Azeri issue which I have no idea why you brought it here can you please make any comments on the actual issue.

Any comments on how and why the user adds twice the population statistics of a city from 1897 to the province which is a geographic region and has history dates back only 1992 is not POV? The user clearly putting his Armenian POV to the any article without any concern or regarding the Iğdır City/Iğdır Province difference. Thanks--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: How come Iğdır is unproblematic? The user is clearly an Armenian POV pusher. Adding the 1897 Iğdır City census to Iğdır Province article whose history starts from 1992 and has different borders and demography from the city is revealing EtienneDolet's intentions very well. It is like inserting a particular group's New York City population census data from a century ago to New York State article to favour the certain group. The collaboration edit is also clearly POV and disruptive. In the article there are the pictures of both Azeri and Armenian soldiers. EtienneDolet change the wording to Nazi Azeri Troops from Azeri SS volunteers but left the "Armenian Soldiers" as it was. In this edit I cannot see much obvious evidence that the user is Armenian POV pusher.--Abbatai 17:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: ED adds Iğdır City census data only from, 1897 when Armenians were majority, to the province apparently city and province has different history and demographics. The fact that they are different entities aside what ED added to the article is falsification. "However, the majority of the population was historically Armenian..." is not true at all. From the article Iğdır City: "According to the Russian family lists accounts from 1886, of the total 71,066 inhabitants of the districts 34,351 were Azerbaijanis (48.3%, mentioned as 'Tatars' in the source), 22,096 Armenians (31.1%) and 14,619 Kurds (20.6%).^[1]" As you see the population of city was not historically Armenian, ED picks a certain time from the history of city and claims the population of the province was historically Armenian. The user is Armenain POV pusher I provided plenty of evidences.--Abbatai 20:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean the long time ally of EtienneDolet, backs him/her every means possible (see [64]), shows up here too. I will not respond him at regarding his personal attack calling me "fascist". I expect admins to take necessary actions needed as it is clearly an insulting word. Or should I fill another complaint regarding his edits and latest personal attack?--Abbatai 18:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Athenean seems very well informed about Wikipedia policies however rules applied to all he neglects WP:NPA and WP:ADHOM.--Abbatai 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the interfernece of user Tiptoethrutheminefield and Athenean it is important to mention those three editors WP:SANCTIONGAME behaviour on this and numerous other AE. They repeatedly back one another in various disputed areas see user compare results: [65] [66]. Both users has no mention of EtienneDolet's Armenian POV push here, instead they are gaming to put all blame on me for the EtienneDolet's disruptive edits. Even Athenean went too far to defend ED. He personally attacked me and brought off-topic edits of mine here. Lastly, see the previous AE filled against ED [67], They were so quick to defend their best buddy.--Abbatai 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield "then why is Abbatai happy to allow population statistics from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, etc...." Is it the only thing you can say about ED's POV push about Iğdır Province/City edits? Thank you for confirming my point you are impartial and only came here to defend ED. ED's Armenian POV doesn't concern you instead you are gaming and diluting the topic. Anyway what you are saying is clarly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Now I would love to hear your comment on Province/City difference If possible.

"an unjustified pov tag (this [63] is NOT a proper tag justification)" FYI ED deleted the tag first and then went to discuss it on the talk page. From the lead of article: "Andranik Ozanian's intentions were to attract the attention of the foreign consuls at Mush to the plight of the Armenian peasants and to provide a glimmer of hope for the oppressed Armenians of the eastern provinces.[7]" is clear violation of WP:EDITORIAL so removal of the tag was not right. That explicitly proves you and EtienneDolet have similar agenda.

"this [65] restored alternative names that had been deleted without justification and deleted a reference that was actually not a reference for the tagged for sources content." Another Armenian POV push by ED. Majority of sources point the Orontid Dynasty had Iranian origin. In general the origin of the dynasty is disputed. Therefore, deleting Iranian citations is Armenian POV push. Also Tiptoethrutheminefield you are claiming "and deleted a reference that was actually not a reference for the tagged for sources content." how? ED deletded all the sourced content then removed the tag in line with new content. So the user first removed reliable sources/content then readded the Armenian transliteration. That requires a sanction under ARBAA2. Honestly why am I discussing those with you Tiptoethrutheminefield? Let me answer, you ED and Athenean are members of the same WP:GANG.--Abbatai 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield Province and City have completely different traits and a census on the city from 1897 cannot be a reference to the province as I explained above. It is comparing apples to oranges. Your claim that you don't defend ED on this is not true at all. Regarding the whole thread definitely you defend ED here. While talking about inconsistency let me clarify who is inconsistent. You are suggesting discuss the issue on the talk page of the province however when it comes to the AE request against me by ED you have completely different attitude. You desperately try to get me sanctioned. Why don't you advice the same to ED to solve the so called dispute on related talk pages? Why double standards? Just wondering how long are you going to play this sanction game?--Abbatai 16:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Tiptoethrutheminefield denies the three editors' (EtienneDolet, Tiptoethrutheminefield, and Athenean) WP:SANCTIONGAME let me show how their game works with evidences regarding the AE request filled by EtienneDolet against me (Abbatai) just above. On December 9 EtienneDolet clearly goes WP:HOUNDING regarding my latest edits and asks an admin to ban me twice [68] [69] without engaging any collaboration i.e. starting any discussion on related talk pages. On December 10 when the admin refuses ban s/he comes here and reports me with WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour while clearly the dispute would be solved on talk pages. After the admins asking for enough evidence for ban as there is not enough evidence EtienneDolet wisely reverts [70] [71] [72] all my latest edits on 11 December, after two days s/he saw them, to engage me to an edit war. However, when I don't engage editwar absurdly Tiptoethrutheminefield and Athenean who have similar pattern of edits with EtienneDolet appear on the page and make false accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield brings my edit on 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt [73] which has nothing to do with WP:AA2 as his friend EtienneDolet lacked to provide enough evidence. Then Athenean enthusiastically asks [74] for my ban and supports EtienneDolet. Of course all the users are welcomed to state their points but the editors above clearly don't have WP:AGF and seems gaming here on AE. Checking AE requests [75] filled by EtienneDolet would be beneficial.--Abbatai 07:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Providing all evidences above and regarding the disruptive behaviour of EtienneDolet a topic ban on Armenia related topics would be helpful to deal with any further disruption. And of course for the user to reconsider his/her structural WP violating editorial pattern. Thanks--Abbatai 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: There is an ongoing discussion and plenty of evidences showing ED is an Armenian POV pusher. why are you in such a hurry to close the request?--Abbatai 20:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

@Dennis Brown: my goodness Dennis, what white-washing are you talking about? Can you please be more specific and refrain from drawing to conclusions so early? I'm sure you realize your commentary as an admin has influence in what users or admins think about this case. So I'd suggest you look into it more, then comment. So are you talking about my revert at Yerevan? If so, let me break it to you: it wasn't "white-washing". In fact, I reverted POV-pushing WP:SYNTH material. The source, a Turkish etymological dictionary published by the Turkish Language Association, provides absolutely no linkage whatsoever to show that the word Yerevan comes from Revan. To be more clear: there's NOTHING about Yerevan in the source. Beshogur went so far as to put an etymological entry of the word Revan in the article Yerevan under his own wild presumption that the word Yerevan probably comes from the Persian/Turkic word Revan because...it sounds similar? Hell, I don't know. But what I do know is that what Beshogur did was a textbook SYNTH and POV-pushing edit to somehow demonstrate that Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, is a Turkic/Persian city. But to say that I'm the one white-washing things here is very very misleading. My edits at Erzurum are also in line with how the article was since at least 2008 ([76]). I don't understand why I'm being scrutinized when Beshogur removed the Armenian name of Erzurum at least 6 freaking times in that article in the past month or so! And it's not as if he's removing the Creole name of the city, he's removing its Armenian transliteration. A language associated with a people who lived in that town long before the Turks did and whose tragic end to their existence in that city in 1915 shouldn't merit its removal under WP:NCGN standards.

The stuff at Iğdır Province can be easily dealt with at the talk page. I have yet to have heard Abbatai raise these concerns regarding Province/City demographic statistics. Not even his sole talk page comment raises that issue. The first time he raises that issue is at this very moment at this very thread. If he feels that adding stuff about the Armenian population in Iğdır is problematic, let him express his concerns at the talk page first, rather than use that as ammunition to have his "opponents" banned when the time is right. In fact, Abbatai's revert deserves much more scrutiny. He removes reliably sourced information about the Kurds of that town, effectively reducing the Kurds, who represent the majority of the population in that province, to mere non-existence. And the source he uses is nothing but electoral results from the last Turkish election. And he knows that.

But the almost laughable diffs are the ones of Drastamat Kanayan and Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Here, Abbatai is actually implying that his own edits are disruptive. After all, as I laid out in my report against him just above, it was Abbatai who removed the word 'Nazi' in this edit when it comes to Azeris, but adds it in the lead of an Armenian article a few minutes later. And those two edits, when juxtaposed, have been considered disruptive in his own report by at least 3 admins. So the baffling part about Abbatai's accusation here is that my edits are disruptive when, put under his own logic, is nothing but the opposite of his. I remove the word Nazi for Dro and add it back to the Azeri which should make it POV, but when he places Nazi for Dro and removes it for Azeris, it's not. That's hypocrisy at its finest and merits no praise at all.

This is a retaliatory report and merits a boomerang. Abbatai's presentation of my reverts at Kanayan and WWII collaboration proves, in a rather obvious sense, that he actually believes that such an editing pattern is disruptive, but only when it's flipped and against his POV. Abbatai has removed information about Armenians and Kurds whose population was (in the case of the Armenians) and still is (in the case of the Kurds) a majority. And my goodness, this is straight off of a fresh six month topic ban. I must say, Abbatai's pretty bold. A bit too bold. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Wow, Mvbw. Do you really think you're going to get away with telling half the story? I reverted that edit because of the intent behind it, as related in my edit-summary. The whole Nazi for Armenians, SS for Azeris is simply POV and disingenuous, and admins at Abbatai's own AE report just above concluded that those edits, when contrasted with one another, are problematic. On that note, I'm sure you don't have the effrontery of accusing me of reverting material that you yourself have called "typical nationalistic POV-pushing"? Better yet, would you also have the same effrontery to provide just one diff and daresay that that is "not good" when you yourself have said: "Single problematic edit is not enough" for Abbatai just above, then come around and somehow say that I should be sanctioned for battleground? And your most hypocritical accusation yet is that of my supposed battleground behavior, when all I did was file a report, which really wasn't retaliatory in any way, concerning a user who has a proven track record of a disruptive editing pattern in the AA2 topic area. But you, on the other hand, have no history of editing in this topic area but sure do have a heck of a lot of history pushing your grudge against me, going so far as to admin shop in order to reopen closed AE cases against me here. If that's not battleground, I don't know what is. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: what was so vindictive, retaliatory, and battleground-like when it comes to my reverting of edits that you, yourself (and several other admins), have said "is probably POV-pushing"? What would your suggestion be in this case? Just leave these edits to be and have these articles replete with such POV edits? I'm at a loss for words here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, Abbatai made this edit. That was arguably an improvement to a more precise title, but something really really minor. In response, ED reverted [77]. That was arguably not an improvement, but emphasizing something everyone already knows (SS were Nazi, but wait a minute, they also happened to be Azeri!). This is not good, but hardly a serious reason for sanctions. What is actually problematic? The fact that ED brought his content opponent (Abbatai) to AE for making this very innocent edit (diff #2 in his request just above), obviously to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. And of course Abbatai brought precisely the same request about ED. The real problem is WP:BATTLE, and it was started by ED by bringing this to AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ED. I do not suggest any sanction, but only tell that you and Abbatai are engaged in WP:BATTLE. This is something obvious: two contributors filing poorly justified complaints against each other on AE. And thank you for additionally confirming my point. Your latest comment here is just another example of WP:BATTLE. Yes, sure, I do not edit this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenean. You tell [78] that user Abbatai is a "nationalist-fascist". "Nationalist" - OK, maybe, but why fascist? My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all, this is clearly a retaliatory request by Abbatai, since EtienneDolet reported him earlier (see above). This in itself is evidence of battleground behavior and merits a WP:BOOMERANG. Second, I very strongly suspect Abbatai is not the author of this report. Abbatai's English is best described as atrocious ("and accuse me every means possible" "I believe article is heavily biased from name to not exclusion of 1914 revolt." [79]). He rarely can string more than 5-6 words in a sentence. Yet here we have an report in flawless English, with long, elaborate sentences. Clearly Abbatai is not capable of this level of English. There is foul play here. But most importantly, to suggest any sort of equivalency between ED and Abbatai, as Peacemaker is doing, is incredibly ill-informed. ED is an incredibly valuable contributor, who has created an immense amount of content (262 articles created, and counting), with a spotless record. By contrast Abbatai is nothing more than an obsessive Turkish nationalist-fascist SPA who contributes nothing but POV-pushing and disruption: From attempting to whitewash Kemalist involvement in the 2016 coup attempt [80] [81] (notice how he lies about "moving" the content - he didn't "move" it, he deleted it), and Ergenekon affair [82], to the typical Turkish xenophobic removal of any mention of minorities [83] (again notice the misleading edit summary), to petty trolling of Armenian users [84] [85] (note the bad English in the edit summary), it's all very familiar. He has a long block log [86] and has already been topic banned from this area, for exactly this type of battleground behavior. Abbatai contributes nothing to the topic area, and is a textbook example of a minority-baiting, Turkish nationalist POV-pusher with a severe case of WP:BATTLE mentality who is clealy WP:NOTHERE. I am amazed he isn't topic banned yet. This frivolous retaliatory report should be the final straw. Athenean (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai's latest outburst is yet further evidence that he is WP:NOTHERE. The fact that he considers problematic adding the Armenian name to the article of an Armenian King, or that mentioning that Guenter Levy has been dubbed a genocide denier by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, shows the problem is with Abbatai, not ED. I also note that Abbatai continues to lie through his teeth: For example, he claims that in this diff [87] ED removed the Azeri name. This a brazen lie, the diff itself shows ED only rearranged the order of the names, nothing was removed. The fact that this user thinks it ok to lie so brazenly in an AE proceeding speaks volumes about his intentions. How is it possible to reach a good-faith agreement with a user who employs deception so easily and casually (not to mention clumsily). I repeat, it is beyond clear that Abbatai is WP:NOTHERE. Athenean (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this was due to haste (Volunteer Marek waited for a full FOUR minutes between telling ED to strike his comments [88] at Vladimir Putin - which ED has since done [89] - and rushing here [90] to try and score points against ED in an unrelated dispute), or he would have noticed that My very best wishes (who seems to follow ED in every AE proceedings ED is involved in) has also commented here, thus making VM's comment richly ironic. Made even more ironic by VM pointing out that those users he despises are frequently active at AE and implying that is somehow a bad thing [91]. Also interesting that VM essentially makes exactly the same insinuations [92] that Abbatai did in his latest post [93]. Just sayin'.Athenean (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VM: If you really feel like what "the three of you are doing is so transparent that a two year old could see it", then why don't you file a report? Otherwise, you would be advised to knock it off with the wild allegations, because you do realize that making wild allegations at AE is sanctionable. I mean, you do know that, right? And by the way, agreeing with another user is not "collusion", nor is AE a "drama board" as you so contemptuously refer to it (not that it stops your from making almost daily use of it [94]). Athenean (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a tit-for-tat response by Abbatai for the case raised against him. The barrel scrapings of diffs alleging misdeeds reveal nothing of the sort. For example, "adding Armenian population data from 1897 Russian census to a province has history back only to 1992" - then why is Abbatai happy to allow population statistics from the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, etc., to remain in the article? There is nothing wrong in removing [95] an unjustified pov tag (this [96] is NOT a proper tag justification); this [97] is sourced content and was added as a result of talk page discussions, this [98] restored alternative names that had been deleted without justification and deleted a reference that was actually not a reference for the tagged for sources content; this [99] removes an unsourced category assertion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Abbatai's claim that the above is "interference" here. For almost all of the diffs cited by Abbatai as violations by ED, I have also edited those same articles - so I am in a position to comment somewhat on what those diffs actually signify and how they relate to other edits. For example, the removal of the Armenian spelling from the Oronte I article, reverted by ED, is almost certainly connected to recent edit warring at Yervand by IP editors seeking to remove mention that Oronte is just the Latinised version of the Armenian name "Yervand". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding another of the diffs cited by Abbatai as offenses: [100] - The Turkish Language Association aka Turkish Tongue Institute is a 1930s Kemalist propaganda institution set up in to Turkify the language and history of Turkey - its opinions on the origins of placenames connected to Armenian history should be considered pseudo-science not RS. The quote by H. C. Hony (creator of the Oxford English-Turkish dictionary) in the article says it all: "composed almost entirely of politicians" its proceedings full of "arrant nonsense" and "absurdities" and the aims underlying its working as "a narrow and rabid nationalism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek - I am here, as I already explained, because Abbatai has cited a long list of diffs as evidence of alleged offenses and I have also edited many of those same articles so I am in a position to comment on what those diffs actually signify and how they relate to other edits. Why are you here? You say you know nothing of Abbatai, you have not edited in any of the articles cited in the diffs, and you examine none of the evidence provided or make any comment on that evidence's validity or invalidity. In what way is your "statement" a statement concerning this case? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai - I am not supporting or opposing ED's position regarding Igdir content. I was pointing out your inconsistency in opposing pre-Turkish rule population data from before the creation of the province while not opposing post-Turkish rule population data also from before the creation of the province. Province content could legitimately include historical data, including data for its main urban center. I actually suggested some use of the all but unused talk page to perhaps resolve the issue. And there are plenty of examples of me opposing ED's positions in the past, like here [101] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me to ONE - just one, single, uno, 1 - drama board thread where EtienneDolet, Athenean and Tiptoethroughtheminefield don't all show up simultaneously in tandem and proceed to attack whoever is their target d'jour? Really, just one, because I cannot recall a single case even though I've been subject to their attention multiple times. And they are very very frequent visitors to WP:AE. And of course they do the same on articles. Which is why I showed up here as I was just thinking about filing yet another AE request against ED for BLP violations - saying a BLP subject is "loosing it" because they are "too old" [102] - but then I saw this was already up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the answer is "no, I can't come up with even one drama board discussion where the three of us didn't all jump in simultaneously".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "same insinuation" (I didn't think I was insinuating anything - I said plainly, the three of you collude in these discussions and tag team on articles) because what the three of you are doing is so transparent that a two year old could see it. So the fact that more than one person noticed (and frankly I have no idea who Abatai is) is not really some big mystery or "coincidence". Like I said, there isn't a single drama board discussion where the three of you don't show up together to have each other's backs and attacks each other's opponents. Any article where a content dispute develops, it's the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Looking briefly, there does some to be some concerns about whitewashing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said more in the case above, but there does seem to be a problem with both sides. ED might be the lesser of the two problems, but there is still a battleground problem with both of them. We need to address both sides (strong warning is my pick) not just one side, or we end up interfering with the balance of the articles. They need to talk more, edit less, and I do mean both of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not seeing evidence of problematic editing by EtienneDolet. I am seeing evidence of problems with Abbatai, whose editing, while sporadic, seems pretty focused on presenting Kurds in a bad light and Azeris ina good light. With only a dozen or edits in the last month, including filing this complaint, that suggests that Etienne is not the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A mixed bag. The Iğdır and Erzurum diffs seem unproblematic to me; the second of the Iğdır ones removes what appears to be a dissertation, and bases text on a reliable source. So that's an improvement by ED. The Yerevan edit also is fine with me, since the text they removed only dropped a factoid into an article without saying anything about what it means. However, I don't understand the Kanayan edit or the Collaboration edit. In the case of the Kanayan edit, the information is verified by the cited book source, and ED's edit summary, "Azeris fight for SS, but Armenians fight for Nazis?" makes no sense to me--and if they have to explain it, it wasn't a good summary in a contentious topic. (One can quibble and say that the source says "created" and not "led", but that's another matter.) But to start an ARE discussion over those edits, I don't see the purpose, and to make the case that this fits a larger pattern or something like that requires much stronger evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbatai, I still don't see the problem with Igdir--"clearly" POV is not so clear to me, nor is there anything on the talk page that clears this up. Note that the edit clearly adds a historical note; in other words, I don't see an attempt at falsification of the present--if that's what you say the editor was going for. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with Drmies the diffs are a mixed bag and not all put ED in a bad light, but the main problem I see here is battleground behaviour and failure to edit neutrally, which applies to both of them. I suggest they both be admonished for battleground behaviour and warned that any future examples are likely to result in a TBAN covering the problematic areas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For ED's benefit, I will say that the appropriate action to take when faced with what you consider is POV-editing is to discuss on talk and if no consensus can be gained there in a reasonable amount of time, the appropriate action would be to use a dispute resolution method like RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposing to close. I agree with User:Drmies' comment of December 18. The original Etienne Dolet complaint about Abbatai (above) might have been closed, due to the two diffs not being terribly convincing. At most some rewording might be suggested, after a talk discussion about the best names for the respective regiments organized by the Germans. There have been past sanctions against Abbatai in 2016, including a six-month topic ban. They do appear justified. But neither the Etienne Dolet complaint nor the Abbatai complaint seem to have inspired any admins to call for a new sanction. At most we have some of them calling for warnings. I would be tempted to close both WP:AE#Abbatai and WP:AE#Etienne Dolet with no sanctions against either party. If anyone wants an official warning placed in WP:DSLOG against either party can you propose the wording? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose: "Abbatai/ED is admonished and warned against battleground behaviour and failure to edit neutrally. Future examples of these behaviours are likely to result in a topic ban." Or words to that effect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with this warning as worded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm closing both WP:AE#Abbatai and WP:AE#Etienne Dolet per the above reasoning. No sanctions, but a logged warning to both. "Abbatai and Etienne Dolet are both admonished and warned against battleground behaviour and failure to edit neutrally. Future examples of these behaviours are likely to result in a topic ban." EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem, and now, (self-admitted) WP:WIKIHOUNDING. [103]
2. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions. That was per behavior in this AE discussion, and multiple previous ones at the WP:AE board.
3. 23:38, 18 December 2016 I recently expanded the article, And you are lynching Negroes, taking it from State before: [104]. State after: [105].
4. SashiRolls shows up, never having edited the talk page before, to complain about the expansion work on the page, and to engage in ad hominem, as per past behavior by user. Comments at Is there not a bit of "today" politics motivating this nomination, Sagecandor.
5. 23:44, 18 December 2016 User edits own post, to highlight even more the ad hominem nature of the post at I guess the question is "Why?".
6. 23:52, 18 December 2016 User self-admits to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, with comment, Yes, I am keeping an eye on you from afar [106]
7. 00:05, 19 December 2016 - After pointing out this is WP:WIKIHOUNDING, user instead responds with snarky comment at [107].

Pattern of same behavior with multiple editors

1. 01:30, 8 August 2016 Warned by Neutrality for form of personal attack, specifically "casting aspersions." See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Civility. Please refrain from making these kinds of (baseless) comments.
2. 02:36, 28 October 2016 Questioned by Drmies for casting aspersions at WP:AN against NuclearWarfare -- after previous topic ban days before implemented by NuclearWarfare [108]. And again one week later [109].
3. 22:16, 7 November 2016 Neutrality points out user is casting aspersions against Neutrality and bringing up their name repeatedly in unrelated posts. "SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting." [110].
4. 03:52, 28 November 2016 Warned by Jytdog for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior -- at the WP:AE board.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19:28, 3 September 2016 Topic ban from politics related topic on a living person by NuclearWarfare.
2. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

1. 12:59, 30 August 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by MrX.
2. 16:08, 6 November 2016 Sanctions notice about American Politics 2, by Doug Weller.
3. 19:38, 14 December 2016 Reminder by Jytdog about American Politics 2. Specifically by engaging in personal attacks through use of ad hominem.
4. 21:36, 16 December 2016‎ indefinitely prohibited from commenting in AE requests to which you are not a party by Timotheus Canens, after using WP:AE to engage in ad hominem by WP:Casting aspersions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• TL;DR - seems to be exact same pattern of behavior as user was very recently topic banned for (just two days ago) [111], just continuing the behavior now on pages other than here at WP:AE itself, and self-admits to it: [112]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• User has indeed wasted admins time at AE, so much so that they were banned from AE only two days ago. [113]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Timothyjosephwood:Yes, user self-admits to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, with comment, [114]. Ongoing problem with WP:Casting aspersions and ad hominem, as described, above. Sagecandor (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggested remedies: (1) Warning regarding pattern of engaging in personal attacks, WP:Casting aspersions, ad hominem, and now, (self-admitted) WP:WIKIHOUNDING [115] -- and (2) Interaction ban. Sagecandor (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Laser brain:Thank you very much for your helpful advice. I've cleaned up the post. [116]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Timothyjosephwood:The user was asked to stop on their user talk page. The user refused to stop, and instead replied with a snarky comment [117]. I think a Warning against WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and ad hominem is appropriate here, and an Interaction ban. Sagecandor (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Timothyjosephwood:There is a direct pattern of behavior from receiving a topic ban from NuclearWarfare [118], and then immediately after hounding the admin that gave them the sanction as noted by Drmies at [119] and [120]. Neutrality had been pushed to the breaking point to finally say: "SashiRolls: I've basically tried to avoid interacting with you, given your past conduct, but you continue to draw my name into your constantly grievance-laden posts. The fact that you bear these incredible grudges and follow editors around is extremely off-putting." [121]. Do you see the pattern here with multiple admins and users unrelated to myself ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Laser brain, Dennis Brown, and Peacemaker67: 05:16, 20 December 2016 Latest reply by SashiRolls is remarkable for its doublethink. Accuses myself, Tryptofish, and Snooganssnoogans of "unclean hands", makes false statements: "Their saying that I am against everyone at Wikipedia", admits he looks "critically" at pages I'm improving, claims "I myself am being lynched", and ends it all by concluding: "in this statement I do not engage in personal attacks". These are just the user's own most recent words. [122]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Regarding the "Request", by SashiRolls in his section, this was already dealt with in a report against me at ANI, at length, and closed without incident at 00:57, 11 December 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Despite making motives clear with [123], still protesting article improvement efforts with [124]. Not sure why they feel the need to drag that sort of thing out, when it serves zero purpose towards article improvement efforts. Sagecandor (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update 2: User has posted to talk page of Exemplo347 who originally hatted the off-topic exchange about me on an article I was improving, calling their hatting action a "personal attack" [125]. User has posted for help asking two admins to come here to AE. [126] [127]. For the 2nd request, the user chose to use the subject heading, "Lynching", in reference to these proceedings. [128] Sagecandor (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 00:56, 19 December 2016 Notification given. Sagecandor (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

This is nonsense. Am leaving for Christmas thoroughly disappointed. Will not return before the 27th. I still have never wasted admins time taking anyone to AE. Could you please limit yourself to 500 words and 20 diffs, for my return? Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours less sleep never hurt anyone, right?.... z.z.z.z.

Recent

• 1-2 general assertions: I gave up counting the variations on "cast aspersions", "ad hominem", and WikiHounding in your statement at well over a dozen. (thou dost protest too much?)

• 3-4. The idea behind asking me not to participate in other people's cases when you bring cases against them, I think, was to minimize the drama at AE, not to increase it by dragging me here on pretty clearly trumped up charges. You have tried to get me blocked or banned by leaving messages on three admins ([129], [130],[131]) talk pages, and have engaged in personal attacks against me on the NPOV notice board (calling me a "Russian propaganda user") No courtesy ping in any of the four cases. You have been involved in more than a half dozen AE cases (at least four of which you yourself have brought here) in your four week long Wikipedia career. You've also put together a GA nomination, nominated pages for deletion, and managed to get one of the main pages you worked on ("fake news website") become the subject of frustration on Jimbo's page among others (and as usual, no, I didn't start the discussion). You systematically delete questions or notifications you don't like from your talk page, even questions as simple as "Have you ever edited Wikipedia before?", but also questions and warnings from rather a lot of users.

• 5-10 a. the two comments I made on the page Sagecandor nominated for GA. Are you sure that these two paragraphs warrant so much finger pointing as in 1-2 above?

• 5-10b. I had edited pages today on the Robert Charles riots (with its story of the Green Turtles), the New Orleans riot of 1866, rereading bits of Black Reconstruction (WEBDubois) to see how I could work on various Reconstruction pages? As such, seeing the open RfC for "and you are lynching Negroes?" I went to have a look. This is why I discovered your work Sagecandor (which those who read the diff in the previous section know I said was "serious" work. I made some friendly and helpful content suggestions (one of which was directly in line with previous suggestions on the talk page)). Response to Tjw: The comments made reflect my opinion that the focus on this page is related to WP:RECENT news. While I may be wrong to hold this opinion, I do not see how this is a personal attack of anywhere near the same gravity as calling someone a "Russian propaganda account". It seems to me when this latter is sanctioned, then more subtle questions can be asked; until it is sanctioned, this case is without any merit.SashiRolls (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old

• 1-5 represent old stuff for which I am doing my time and respecting my sentence. I can not talk about them because I am topic banned.
• 6-7. See my talk page for full disclosure on B'rer Frog's one edit.
• 8-10. Please see the full context. Neither Doug Weller, nor Drmies felt that my behavior warranted a sanction. I did not cast aspersions on Nuclear Warfare. I said I was keeping quiet about what I was meant to keep quiet about (as a result of a topic ban).
• 11. Jytdog made a mistake, as he admitted both on AE and on my talk page. I was not carrying any dispute from the Singapore page to AE, I was just pointing out his abrupt manner of stating his opinion ("putrid" I think was his word...). Since he deleted this comment immediately after he made it, I wonder how you know about it, and what you – yourself – know about wikihounding.
• 12. seriously? who is accusing whom of personal attacks?
• 13. Please see 3-4 in "Today's stuff"

I would request that Sagecandor go home and spend the holidays with loved ones and stop bringing people to AE. I do not even necessarily want Santa to bring him a boomerang. Once again, I have never brought anyone to AE, because I seek to edit harmoniously, following the rules That can even be reliably sourced to the News on Wikipeida (WMF blog) :) (I was interviewed because of my (very modest) work on DAPL / DAPL protests. (I certainly do not deserve much credit at all for those articles though; I was just the only one who answered the journalist's questions, I guess.)

I suppose that I am making a mistake not pinging anyone or mentioning anyone to get them to run over and seek vengeance for a previous block as Snoogansnoogans has done below. But I'm going to just enjoy my holidays with my family, OK? yep, that's another article I'm glad to have influenced. SashiRolls (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

1. The above statement has been made unclear by the fact that Sagecandor has completely modified his statement after it was made. (Compare: [132])
2. I have been told to "sod off", and have been accused of being a "jackass" without any evidence being supplied
3. Nowhere have I "admitted to wiki-hounding". I have said I am keeping an eye on Sagecandor, which means that when I land on a page that has been produced by the editor, (because of an open "request for comment" here (as of 20 Dec)) I will look at it critically in order to assess its value and provide input, which is what I did at the page in question. I have since been brought to AE where I myself am being lynched (see #2 and comments above & below).
4. On pages like Sciences Po, Singapore, Dakota Access Pipeline, Dakota Access Pipeline protests I have participated positively in an attempt to calm debate in the first two cases and have engaged in cordial discussion to simply advance the project in the last two.
5. Before any decision is made I would like to ask if I have the right to bring character witnesses from these or other projects I have worked on, but I will sadly not have time to do that before the 27th of December. Sagecandor has pinged a dozen people who he thinks are hostile to me in his statement, I have pinged nobody hostile to him here. So far every involved party who has commented on this case also commented on the first one. Strange, no?
6. From #1 on, it seems to me that this case should be thrown out of "court" for procedural flaws (statement fundamentally changed after it was replied to, administrator engaging in personal attacks, calling me a "jackass" without providing any evidence. Moreover as both Timothyjosephwood and Dennis Brown have noted below, AE is not the appropriate venue for Sagecandor's complaint as no violation of special arb restrictions is involved.
7. Of course, there is no basis for this case: Tryptofish, Sagecandor, & Snooganssnoogans all come here with "unclean hands". Their saying that I am against everyone at Wikipedia is certainly not true: I have spent significant time responding to a Wikimedia Foundation interview, have taken great care to interact productively with other editors, even those who do not respect the 5P, and have been regularly thanked for my work here (via the "thank" button) by at least twenty different accounts in a few short months. My copyediting work as well as productive research for appropriate sources has "stuck" (i.e. has not been deleted) because I take the time to craft my sentences fairly, carefully vetting for POV, and improving on it when people have made good suggestions.
8. Regarding NPA, jackassery, etc. this statement is a case in point: any neutral observer can see that in this statement I do not engage in personal attacks despite having mud slung at me from every direction. I expect ArbCom will be able to see this if/when it becomes necessary for them to review any decision taken here. SashiRolls (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request I would specifically like to request a formal finding by any closing administrator concerning the appropriateness of Sagecandor suggesting that I am a Russian propaganda user" here. Is this unfounded personal attack in keeping with Wikipedian best practices? (Please note that this is the origin of this case.) Fact: I have never been paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia. SashiRolls (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dennis Brown: It seems to me that you should give this case as long as the average case on AE for comment. What's your rush in this case? I have asked that a respected admin who to the best of my knowledge has had no contact with Sagecandor (and very limited interaction with me) look at the evidence, and have also asked that a Signpost editor (again no interaction with Sagecandor to my knowledge, and very little direct interaction with me, other than thanking me once for a copyedit) take a look. Until one of them has had time to look in and decide if they want to comment, I would submit that rushing this through during the holiday season when most cases are left open at least a week (unless found to be groundless) could quite justifiably be seen as arbitrary and capricious. SashiRolls (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of SashiRolls' modus operandi. The user turns every page he/she edits on into a battleground (usually because SashiRolls adds ridiculous, charged content from poor sources, reverts quality content from reliable sources, and then can't discuss things in a reasonable manner), and proceeds to harass the users that he/she disagrees with. As can be seen from my talk page, SashiRolls was obsessed with me from this summer to mid-November, because the user disagreed with my edits on the Jill Stein page (a page that the user was later banned from). The obsession turned into harassment in late October, with the user following me around, reverting my edits for ridiculous reasons on pages of no previous interest to SashiRolls[133], mentioning me in 17 different edits over a three-week span, repeatedly editing my talk page with nonsense.[134] SashiRolls was then told by some admin in no unclear terms to stop following me around and harassing me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we spend a few days not on AE? Is there really a current disruption that needs to be addressed? TimothyJosephWood 03:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(With a fresh cup of coffee and a slightly better attitude) I'm not an AE expert, and don't want to become one, but I'm not sure this is really the best venue for this, since I'm not entirely sure "sod off" (which Sashi should seriously consider doing with regard to Sage) is normally within the purview of AE. But generally, it seems a lot like the better option here would have been to grab the most uninvolved person available, or your friendly neighborhood admin, and let them apply a generous helping of Template:Collapse, probably a few links like WP:NOTFORUM, and maybe even collaborate a bit to finally write WP:SODOFF.

...And looking around, it seems someone has already beaten me to it.

At any rate, most issues on Wikipedia can actually be resolved without resorting to AE or ANI, and these really should only be used as a last resort, not a first, second, or even third step. TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's no harm in an IBAN. But soon we're going to have to start keeping a matrix of things Sashi can and cannot edit. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to take this to your talk because this is probably getting too conversational for the venue. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: @Laser brain: I would love for there to be at least some indication with the user why this kind of behavior is problematic. I'm just not sure my imagination can see a way that's going to easily come about, especially if they've simply decided to take a wikibreak, have a pint, and wait for it all to blow over. They have, despite themselves, made some positive contributions, especially in the area of spotting copyright violations in articles, but the over-the-top off-article behavior is still probably a net negative, at least in the absence of any sense of understanding why. TimothyJosephWood 23:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear Sashi, I don't think anyone is considering the Russian spy AN thread as ideal, but likewise, this comment is basically the definition of casting aspersions. When I say "sod off", what I mean is that there are times in probably every editor's career when the best possible thing they can do regarding another editor, situation, or both is to simply leave it alone.

More importantly, in my opinion, comments like that on your talk page that then, I made the mistake of editing a Green party VP candidate's page seem to show an obliviousness to problems with your own behavior. Your main defense here seems to be others have done bad stuff too when that's not really the point. I don't think you realize that Wikipedia is not an unforgiving place when editors, even and especially administrators, horribly muck something up, but are immensely and immediately willing to admit they did, and take steps to fix it.

This is, in fact, not a court, with the important distinction that often the very best defense you can bring, is to plead unequivocally guilty, because the actual crime is being guilty, not understanding why you are, and being unwilling to fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 09:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this case is without any merit Well, we'll see you in a few months I guess. TimothyJosephWood 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is indeed ripe for AE, and maybe well-past its spoilage date. I've been in the previous AEs for SashiRolls, and Snooganssnoogans is correct that this is the typical pattern. I agree strongly with what Dennis Brown says below, having actually been in such editing situations. We are at the end of the WP:ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the admin discussion, I'm not sure that 3 months versus 6 months really makes much of a difference. But I do want to make it clear that the likelihood of coming back after reflection during a block, and being a net positive, is nil. Here are three section permalinks to his user talk, in the wake of previous sanctions: [135], [136], [137]. Repeatedly, there is a pattern of "everyone else is wrong except me". Dwelling on a signature error in the notice of a previous AE decision, renaming a socking block as "inappropriate punitive blocks / gag rules", tons of falsely and cluelessly blaming everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tryptofish and T.Canens. SashiRolls is a net negative for the project, and he does everything on purpose. I do not know if he is really a paid contributor, but it does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• @Sagecandor: Please trim this filing to be within the guidelines for this page. Your diffs should be limited to explicit, recent examples of what you are requesting sanctions for. Most of your links under "relevant sanctions" aren't sanctions at all, etc. Please clean up this mess before it will even be considered. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've read through the primary diffs provided, and understand why so many were needed. While each diff taken alone isn't reason for action, the fact that there are so many that seem to be singularly focused on causing grief to others is a concern. For lack of a better term, this is what we call "jackassery". Frankly, I wouldn't want to work near Sashi and I wonder how many people have been run off due to their antics. The provided diffs are only from a short period of time, a snapshot. After handling other cases with Sashi jumping in, I have seen first hand how they can inject themselves where their input is neither helpful nor wanted. Sashi being an editor here seem to clearly be a net-negative for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the pattern is disturbing and action is needed. The action that triggered this filing (showing up unbidden at an article talk page to question an editor's motives for working on an article? really?) is troubling enough, but it's definitely part of a larger track record of disruptive behavior. I'm leaning toward a topic ban on AP2, but I'm wondering if that casts a wide enough net to stop the disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My gut says the topic isn't the problem, nor related to the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To add: while we may be at AE, as admin we are not bound to only look through the lens of Arbitration Enforcement and can view the bigger picture. These problems aren't because the articles are Arb restricted, and in fact, the restrictions are incidental to the disruption. I don't think this is a hopeless case but I think the problem is bigger than interaction or topic bans can fix. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but until then, my gut (again) is telling me that a 6 month block is the right solution. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see how anything short of an extended, clean break is going to solve the problem and have the potential to prevent disruption in the future. This is a big step but I think blocks should have come earlier and didn't, and too many good faith editors have paid the price. I would accept more or less but feel that 6 months is the right length. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the six month block. I briefly entertained the notion of a topic ban but I don't think that is likely to prevent further disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is wikihounding in my view, not the odd snarky comment. And Sashi has basically admitted wikihounding, so I consider that is what should be sanctioned. I agree that we need to act on the behaviour here even though it doesn't really fit into AP2. I don't think IBANs work, there is too much wriggle room, and this is probably impacting on more than just one editor. However, I think a six month block is too long. I suggest a three month block, which is long enough to make the point about wikihounding and allow editors to edit without harassment for a while. If Sashi returns to the same conduct after the block, it will be a simple matter to impose a longer or indef block for being a net negative. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 3 month is within the range I had in mind, albeit on the lower end. As I said, I don't think they are a hopeless case, but I think some time off and reflection is needed, and a break for everyone else. I agree with your assessment on the problem and how it fits, you simply stated better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SashiRolls, the "Russian propaganda" issue is out of scope for this investigation as it is already being discussed on another administrative board. To everyone, I'm very much considering just doing the 3 month block (which is an lenient as I think we can be) as a conventional, non-AE action, for wikihounding. I will give it the day before acting to see if there are any other ideas or objections. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. We all seem to be on the same page here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys are a lot more lenient than I am. I would have indeffed with the usual first-year-as-AE-block. T. Canens (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly favor at least six months, and with due respect to Peacemaker67, I think consensus among those of us commenting is for longer than three months. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]